For nearly 2,000 years the intrinsic nature of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has been in dispute. To remedy this problem
the Roman Church convened councils and passed several creeds, which continue
to influence modern worship today. But do these creeds reflect the truth of
Scripture? To answer this crucial question, this booklet will explore the
historical and biblical accuracy of these doctrines, including the Trinity,
oneness belief, and the preexistence of Yahshua the Messiah.

An Early Paradigm Shift

The main inducement for interpreting the
essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a triune deity came through
Greek and Roman cults. The early church constituted Jews and proselytes to
the Jewish faith. With the introduction of gentile converts came a shift in
thought and theology. Unlike the Jews, who viewed the worship of Yahweh in a
monotheistic manner, the gentiles were polytheistic, worshiping many false
gods.

Besides the monotheism versus polytheism issue,
there was another key distinction between Jew and gentile. While the Jews
emphasized their relationship with Yahweh, the Greeks were more concerned
with His essence. This difference in emphasis along with the burgeoning
numbers of gentile converts led to understanding Yahweh from a Greco-Roman
perspective.

According to authors Alan Johnson and Robert E.
Webber, "The view of God in the ancient church passed through the
Greco-Roman grid. Consequently the emphasis in this early period of the
church is not so much on the relationship of God to the world as on God as
he is in himself" (What Christians Believe, A Biblical and Historical
Summary, p. 82).

The authors go on to state, "The issue the
church faced in the pagan Hellenistic culture was to affirm both the unity
and the diversity of God in the midst of a polytheistic culture. On the one
hand, the church needed to remain faithful to the Old Testament emphasis on
the oneness of God. On the other hand, it could not ignore the New Testament
revelation of diversity. So the questions were: How do you maintain the
unity of God without losing the diversity? How do you maintain the diversity
of God without falling into polytheism? While the church was eventually to
affirm both the unity and the diversity of God in the creeds, various groups
in the second and third century overemphasized either the unity or the
diversity" (p. 83).

The authors explain here the overwhelming task
that the Church had in the first few centuries. As gentile-minded believers
were coming in they had to please both them and the Jewish converts who
established the early assembly in the New Testament. Many Jews were arguing
that a convert to Messiah had to become a Jew first through physical
circumcision, which is the controversy in Acts 15.

So what was the church to do? Should they
continue to maintain the monotheistic beliefs of the Jews or change their
theology to more closely align with the many new gentile converts? At the
root of this question was the essence of the Father and Son. Were they one
and the same, were they distinct beings, were they co-equal, were they
co-eternal, was one subservient to the other?

To answer these critical questions, the church
went through several stages of meetings (counsels) and developed several
creeds until they solidified the position of the church. The major advocates
of each side were Arius (250 CE – 336 CE) and the bishop Athanasius
(296-336). While there were other arguments and contributors, the positions
that the men proposed became the two competing views of the church.

Arius’ Hebraic View

Arius was a prominent priest in Alexandria,
Egypt. He chose an ascetic life, rejecting the many pleasures of the world.
From historical accounts, Arius was a man of devotion and sincere motives.
He received his religious training at Antioch, the first location of the
early assembly. Unlike Alexandria, which was dominated by the Greek mind,
Antioch maintained a Hebraic view, including a strict monotheistic
interpretation of Scripture. He was taught under Lucian of Antioch, a
well-known teacher and martyr of the early church; some blamed Lucian for
Arius’ opposition to the Trinity.

Arius held that the Father and Son were
distinct from one another and that the Father was superior to the Son. He
also maintained that the Son pre-existed with the Father and rejected the
belief that the Son was co-eternal with the Father. He maintained that the
Messiah was created by His Father Yahweh. For these beliefs he was branded a
heretic and suffered persecution.

Author Wayne Gruden concurs, "Arius taught that
god the Son was at one point created by God the Father, and that before that
time the Son did not exist, nor did the Holy Spirit, but the Father only.
Thus, though the Son is a heavenly being who existed before the rest of
creation and who is far greater than all the rest of creation, he is still
not equal to the Father in all his attributes—he may even be said to be
‘like the Father’ or ‘similar to the Father’ in his nature, but he cannot be
said to be ‘of the same nature’ as the Father" (Systematic Theology,
p. 243).

Athanasius for the Opposition

While historical records are sketchy, records
show that Athanasius was born in Alexandria and was mentored under
Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. From an early age he showed promise in
the church. As a result, he was ordained a deacon in the Roman Church before
age 30.

Because of these early achievements, Athanasius
was instrumental at influencing the most important council in the history of
the church. "Although many early church leaders contributed to the gradual
formulation of a correct doctrine of the Trinity, the most influential by
far was Athanasius. He was only twenty-nine years old when he came to the
Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, not as an official member but as secretary to
Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. Yet his keen mind and writing ability
allowed him to have an important influence on the outcome of the Council,
and he himself became Bishop of Alexandria in 328" (Ibid, p. 245).

Athanasius understood the relationship between
the Father and Son much differently from his opponent, Arius. He believed
that the Father and Son were co-equal and of the same substance. According
to author Earl E. Cairns he "insisted that Christ had existed from all
eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios) as
the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon these
things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had stated Him
to be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s eternal
salvation was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son
according to Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and
consubstantial with the Father…" (Christianity Through the Centuries,
pp. 142-143).

Political Unity the Overriding Concern

Because of the competing beliefs of Arius and
Athanasius, many were concerned about not only the stability of the church
but of the empire, including Emperor Constantine. Authors Anthony F. Buzzard
and Charles F. Hunting in their book, The Doctrine of the Unity,
describe this deep fear: "The marked ideological differences between Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch were matters of concern to the Roman Emperor. The
power of religion played so great a role in the stability of the
fourth-century Roman Empire that religious turmoil had to be brought under
control by the State, lest it disrupt political unity.

"Constantine determined to resolve the dispute
by means of the following identical, conciliatory letters sent to each
faction, urging reconciliation of differences: ‘Constantine the Victor,
Supreme Augustus, to Alexander and Arius...How deep a wound has not only my
ears but my heart received from the report that divisions exist among
yourselves...Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of
these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature,
quite unworthy of such bitter contention’" (pp. 149-150).

Emperor Constantine simply wanted political
unity in his empire and he failed to grasp the magnitude of what was being
discussed. This is consistent with his heathen background, wherein both
pagan Greek and Roman cults’ theological differences were inconsequential.
The overriding concern was only that the many gods in Greece and Rome got
their due obeisance. Doctrine was not critical.

The theological impact of the two views being
espoused was enormous, with Athanasius firmly holding to the view that the
Father and Son were of the same substance, co-eternal and co-equal, while
Arius contended that the Father and Son were distinct with the Son being
neither co-eternal nor co-equal with His Father. According to historians,
their differences led to numerous bloody conflicts. "Before the orthodox
doctrine of the relationship of the two natures was finally formulated, many
scenes of passion and violence occurred" (Christianity Through the
Centuries, p. 146).

According to Arthur Cushman McGiffert, "In the
hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of
Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest
to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was
threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to
put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish
bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet
representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to
restore harmony. ‘Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared
anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the
controversy to a close, and Hosius’ advice appealed to him as sound’" (A
History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, p. 258).

It’s ironic that the motivation for finding a
resolution on this central issue was not scriptural but political. To
accomplish this, the church convened a council, which would become the
method of resolving disputes in the church. In most cases, the emperor would
preside over the councils. In the case of the Council of Nicea, Emperor
Constantine chaired the proceedings.

Hot Debate at the Council of Nicea

From
June 19 through August 25, 325 CE, leaders of the Church met at the council
of Nicea. Constantine invited 1,800 bishops, but only a fraction attended.
In addition to discussing the canonization of the New Testament and the date
for Easter, the council was there to finally resolve the debate between
Arius and Athanasius.

According to author Earl E. Cairns, "Three
hundred and eighteen leaders were present, but less than ten were from the
Western section of the Empire...Arius, who was backed by Eusebius of
Nicomedia (to be distinguished from Eusebius of Caesarea) and a minority of
those present, insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but
had a beginning by the creative act of God prior to time. He believed that
Christ was of a different (heteros) essence or substance than the
Father. Because of the virtue of His life and His obedience to God’s will,
Christ was to be considered divine. But Arius believed that Christ was a
being, created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father and of a different
essence from the Father. He was not coequal, coeternal or consubstantial
with the Father. To Arius He was divine but not deity.

"Athanasius became the chief exponent of what
became the orthodox view. His wealthy parents had provided for his
theological education in the famous catechetical school of Alexandria. His
work De Incarnatione presented his idea of the doctrine of Christ. At the
council this young man, slightly over thirty, insisted that Christ had
existed from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios)
as the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon
these things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had
stated Him to be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s
eternal salvation was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son
according to Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and
consubstantial with the Father, and for these views he suffered exile five
times before his death" (Christianity Through the Centuries,
pp. 142-143).

After much debate, Athanasius won the day.
While this was a major setback for those who embraced the original Jewish
tenants as taught by the Messiah and His Apostles, this was a notable win
for the Greek minded gentiles that influenced the church. Authors Anthony F.
Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting state, "The Greek philosophically-minded
Alexandrian theologians, led by Athanasius, won the day. Those more under
the earlier influence of Jewish monotheism were defeated. Dissenters who
refused to sign the agreement were immediately banished. The Church was now
taken over and dictated to by theologians strongly influenced by the Greek
mind... ‘When the Greek mind and the Roman mind, instead of the Hebrew mind,
came to dominate the Church, there occurred a disaster from which the Church
has never recovered, either in doctrine or practice’" (The Doctrine of
the Trinity, pp. 151-152).

To ensure uniformity in the Church, the council
drafted its first creed, which was called the Nicene Creed. It read, "We
believe in one God the Father all-sovereign, maker of all things. And in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten,
that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true
God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father,
through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth;
who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and
became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens,
and is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those
that say ‘There was when he was not,’ and, ‘Before he was begotten he was
not,’ and that, ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’ or those that allege,
that the son of God is ‘Of another substance or essence’ or ‘created,’ or
‘changeable’ or ‘alterable,’ these the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes."

While the first Nicene Creed set out to express
the official position of the Church regarding the persons of the Father and
Son, it did little to address the Holy Spirit. Consequently, while this
council gave a final dogmatic ruling on the Father and Son, it did not fully
substantiate the Trinity doctrine. It would take almost fifty more years to
solidify the Trinity doctrine into church teaching.

How Constant Was Constantine?

With
Emperor Constantine presiding over and greatly influencing the results at
the Council of Nicea, it must be asked, was this emperor ever converted?
Even though many in Christendom desire to show him as a champion of the
Church, the reality is he was nothing more than a crafty politician and a
pagan sun worshiper, as was his father before him.

"Constantine appears to have been a
sun-worshiper, one of a number of late pagan cults which had observances in
common with Christians. Worship of such gods was not a novel idea. Every
Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious
piety. Christianity was the religion of Constantine’s father. Although
Constantine claimed that he was the thirteenth Apostle, his was no sudden
Damascus conversion. Indeed it is highly doubtful that he ever truly
abandoned sun-worship. After his professed acceptance of Christianity, he
built a triumphal arch to the sun god and in Constantinople set up a statue
of the same sun god bearing his own features. He was finally deified after
his death by official edict in the Empire, as were many Roman rulers" (Ibid,
p. 147).

Author Norbert Brox endorses this position.
"Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a
change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to
another god. . . at the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this
was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)" (A Concise History of the
Early Church, p. 48).

Another historian writes of Constantine, "He
did not make Christianity the sole religion of the state. That was to follow
under later Emperors. He continued to support both paganism and
Christianity. In 314, when the cross first appeared on his coins, it was
accompanied by the figures of Sol Invictus and Mars Conservator. To the end
of his days he bore the title of pontifex maximus as chief priest of the
pagan state cult. The subservient Roman Senate followed the long-established
custom and classed him among the gods" (A History of Christianity,
Kenneth Scott Latourette, p. 92).

Despite his penchant for sun worship, the
church in its attempt to recognize the legitimacy of Constantine’s
involvement at the Council at Nicea deified him as a saint. Such recognition
is hardly justifiable on any level. For this reason all those who bow their
knee to Athanasius and to the Nicene Creed justify this pagan emperor who
changed the church forever!

If not for Constantine’s involvement, it’s
possible that the Church would have preserved its monotheistic heritage.
"The bulk of Christians, had they been let alone, would have been satisfied
with the old belief in one God, the Father, and would have distrusted the
‘dispensation,’ as it has been called, by which the sole Deity of the Father
expanded into the Deity of the Father and the Son... ‘All simple people,’
Tertullian wrote, ‘not to call them ignorant and uneducated...take fright at
the "dispensation"...They will have it that we are proclaiming two or three
gods’" (The Doctrine of the Unity, Anthony F. Buzzard and
Charles F. Hunting, p. 145).

Council at Constantinople Solidifies the
Trinity

After
the first council at Nicea and the persistent strife that followed, Emperor
Constantine began to regret convening the council. According to historians,
little changed after this council. Church leaders continued teaching their
preferred position, whether it was Arius (also known as Arianism) or the
doctrine solidified by Athanasius at Nicea. "For two centuries after
Constantine, slaughter followed slaughter as professing Christian vied with
Christian in a bloody struggle in defense of what became a hardened
religious orthodoxy. It was required that one accept belief in the Godhead
of two persons (later expanded to a Deity of three persons) or face
banishment, exile, torture and death..." (Ibid, p. 153).

In an attempt to finally resolve the division
in the church, in 381 CE Emperor Theodosius I, also known as Theodosius the
Great, who ruled from 379 CE to 395 CE, called a second ecumenical council.
A total of 150 bishops attended. It was held at Constantinople, which is
Istanbul, Turkey, today. Gregory of Nazianzus chaired the council, an
educated philosopher who infused Hellenistic beliefs into the church. Being
an advocate of the Trinity, including the divinity of the Holy Spirit, he
urged his fellow bishops to accept his view. However, during the council,
Gregory of Nazianzus became ill and resigned his chair. In his place, a man
named Nectarous was appointed. Oddly, Nectarous was not even baptized and
was now in a position to help determine the theological fate of
Christianity. This was the second time a layman presided over a prominent
council.

The council ultimately confirmed the Holy
Spirit as a third equal "person" in the Trinity. As a result, the original
Nicene Creed, now known as the Nicene -Constantinopolitan Creed, was updated
to read,

"We believe in one God, the Father, the
Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We
believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten
of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things
were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the
power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was
made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered
death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the
Scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the
Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and
his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father
and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the
Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We
acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

This final step by Theodosius the Great not
only produced an updated creed, but also established the doctrine of the
Trinity that we know today.

Scholars: Zero Evidence in New Testament for
the Trinity

Being that it took 350 years after the Messiah
to solidify the Trinity, the simple question is, why so long? If the Trinity
is found and supported in the Bible, why did it require many centuries and
numerous church schisms, arguments, debates, and even violence to legitimize
and propagate this doctrine? Why wasn’t it authenticated from the very
beginning, in the book of Acts, avoiding endless questions and wrangling
over it? Where is the New Testament teaching of a triune being?

The fact is the word "Trinity" is not found
anywhere in the Bible. Even the concept is missing. Clearly it was contrived
in the imaginations of man. An exhaustive review of Scripture and history
reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early
New Testament assembly, as supported by numerous authorities:

• "Because the Trinity is such an important
part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not
appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three
coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot
be clearly detected within the confines of the canon" (Oxford
Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 782).

• "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the
Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as
‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three
‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the
language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy" (Christian
Doctrine, Shirley Guthrie, Jr., 1994, pp. 76-77). It’s important to
observe here that the author attributes the notion of the Trinity not to
Scripture, but to influence from Greek philosophy.

• "This is not itself a Biblical term, but was
a term coined by Tertullian to refer to this whole concept under one word" (Classic
Bible Dictionary, Jay P. Green, p. 483). Tertullian was a Christian
author and apologist who lived from 160 CE to 225 CE. Before Tertullian the
word trinity did not exist in Christian writing.

• "Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals
as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts.
The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair
to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity" (Basic
Theology, Professor Charles Ryrie, 1999, p. 89).

• "It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is
nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and
invented by man" (The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker,
Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). Even though Martin Luther was an avid supporter of
the Trinity, he correctly recognized that the doctrine was derived from man
and not from the Bible.

• "The term ‘Trinity’ is not a biblical term…In
point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine…As
the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable
of proof from reason" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
, vol. 5, p. 3012, "Trinity").

• "It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal
with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the
presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of
necessity imperfect" (New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1988, p.
1308, "Trinity"). Should we rest our entire faith on a belief that is a
"deep mystery?"

• "Respecting the manner in which the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one God, the Scripture teaches nothing,
since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained
to us" (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature, p. 553, "Trinity").

• "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather
precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among
themselves" (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, 1885,
"Trinitarians"). Disagreements abounded through the centuries even among
those who advocate this doctrine. Should not a belief so critical and
indispensable be not only plainly and clearly taught in the Scriptures, but
at least be understood and agreed upon by its very proponents?

• "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was
defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is
not to be found in the NT" (The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary,
1996, "Trinity").

• "The doctrine developed gradually over
several centuries and through many controversies… The council of Nicea in
325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the
‘Son is of the same substance…as the Father,’ even though it said very
little about the Holy Spirit…By the end of the 4th century…the doctrine of
the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since" (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, "Trinity").

• "…primitive Christianity did not have an
explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the
creeds of the early church" (New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, Vol. 2, 1976, p. 84, "God").

• "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’
was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian
life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century… Among
the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such
a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967,
Vol. 14).

Both secular historians and Bible scholars
readily admit that the doctrine of the Trinity was not official church
teaching until the council of Nicea. This is startling! Neither the Apostles
nor the early apostolic fathers had a concept of a triune relationship among
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is freely admitted that the doctrine
was not established until 400 years after the Savior’s resurrection. If the
doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical, how did it originate?

Legions of Pagan Trinities

Author
Marie Sinclair writes, "It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that
the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of
antiquity possessed a similar doctrine" (Old Truths in a New Light,
1876, p. 382). The belief in a triune deity is also very ancient, and can be
traced back to ancient Babylon. "Will anyone after this say that the Roman
Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the
doctrine of the Trinity? So did the pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians,
so do the Hindoos at this hour, in the very sense in which Rome does" (The
Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop).

Hislop’s statements are supported in the
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, "Although the notion of a
divine triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is
by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion we meet with the trinitarian
group of Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu; and in Egyptian religion with the
trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family,
like the Father, Mother and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures" (Trinity,
p. 458). According to the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology,
Sumer, an ancient civilization first settled around 4500 BCE to 4000 BCE in
southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), contained a similar belief, "The
universe was divided into three regions each of which become the domain of a
god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the
ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods"
(1994, pg. 54-55).

Perhaps even more important is the influence of
Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, "All things are three, and thrice
is all: and let us use this number in the worship of our gods; for, as the
Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the
end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and they
compose the number of the Trinity" (Author Weigall, Paganism in Our
Christianity, p. 197-198).

A question few ever stop to ask is, why is the
Trinity a belief held firmly by most of Christendom, being completely
lacking in the Bible’s teachings? The historian Will Durant offers this
revealing explanation, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted
it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became
the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed
down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures
contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine
Trinity" (The Story of Civilization, vol. III).

This
blending with paganism, which was commonplace in the early church, changed
Christianity forever. Like the development of the Trinity, many practices
and beliefs today developed over time without biblical support.

A Son Unequal to His Father

What does the Bible actually say about the
relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Does any evidence
for the Trinity exist in the New Testament? The answer is a resolute no. The
first problem with the Trinity doctrine is that the New Testament says
expressly that the Father is greater than the Son. Yahshua called Yahweh His
"Father" for the simple reason that Yahweh was superior to and preceded the
Son in existence—as do all fathers.

The doctrine of the Trinity says that the Son
is both co-equal to and co-eternal with the Father, while the Scriptures
maintain the opposite.

Yahshua the Messiah Himself affirmed that he
was not co-equal with the Father, but was in submission and subjection to
the Father. "You have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again
unto you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the
Father: for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). One cannot be equal
with another if the other is greater.

Yahshua again confirms his submission to his
Father in John 10:29, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;
and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand." Since Yahshua is
speaking, He included Himself here. In His own words Yahshua confirms that
the Father is superior to everyone, including the Son Himself. As we note in
the Restoration Study Bible, "…This precludes the possibility
of a duality or trinity of Father and Son."

The Apostle Paul also confirms Yahshua’s
subordinate relationship to the Father. "But I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the
head of Messiah is Yahweh" (1Cor. 11:3). As Yahweh appointed the man over
the woman at creation, Paul states in like manner that the Father is over
His Son.

In another of Yahshua’s statements we find that
the Father is superior in knowledge to the Son, "But of that day and that
hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32). If the Father and Son were equal, why is
it that the Son is not privy to the timing of His own coming? If they are
indeed co-equal, something is amiss here.

In Matthew 20:23 Yahshua is confronted by the
mother of Zebedee’s children about future positions for her sons. In
response to her inquiry, Yahshua clearly shows that the Father is superior,
"And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized
with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and
on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it
is prepared of my Father."

The Father alone prepares Kingdom rewards. This
is not something that the Son can provide. He again defaults to His Father.
If they were equal and of the same being, why is this honor not bestowed
also upon the Son?

In several instances the Messiah stated that he
could do nothing outside of His Father. In response to the Jews’ hatred for
doing His Father’s will, He stated, "…Verily, verily, I say unto you, The
Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what
things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19). If
the Father and Son shared equal authority, why then was He limited by what
He saw the Father do? Clearly, the concept of the Father and Son being
co-equal is scripturally unfounded.

The Son Is Not Co-eternal with the Father

These passages pose serious problems — but not
the only ones — with the Trinity. The definition of the Trinity states that
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. This assertion is another
misunderstanding, arising from the Council of Nicea.

John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation
under the direction of Yahshua the Messiah. He confirmed that Yahshua was
the first of Yahweh’s creation. "And unto the angel of the assembly of the
Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning of the creation of Elohim" (Rev. 3:14).

The Greek for the word "beginning" here is
arche and means, "a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various
applications of order, time, place, or rank)," Strong’s. Vine’s
Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words further defines this word:
"…NT:746 means ‘a beginning.’ The root arch primarily indicated what
was of worth. Hence the verb archo meant ‘to be first,’ and archon
denoted ‘a ruler.’" While some will argue for the latter definition, the
primary and most reasonable definition conveys that Yahshua was the first in
the commencement of His Father’s creation. If Yahshua was created by His
Father how then can He be co-eternal with His Father? Knowing that one
existed prior to the other, reason alone would conclude that a co-eternal
relationship between the Son and Father is illogical.

To further confirm Yahshua’s statement in
Revelation, in Proverbs 8 we find Solomon confirming Yahshua’s cre-ation,
"Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I
was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains
abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills
was I brought forth" (vv. 22-25).

The preceding verses speak of wisdom. Yahshua
the Messiah is the personification of wisdom. Solomon here was not referring
to simply an attribute, but to the creation of Yahweh’s Son. The word
"possessed" comes from the Hebrew qanah and is a primitive root.
Strong’s defines this word as, "to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to
procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own."
Even though qanah most often refers to procurement in context of
Scripture, the primary meaning in Strong’s is "to erect, i.e. to create."

In addition to the aforementioned passages, the
Bible clearly states that only Yahweh, the Heavenly Father, has immortality
and is the only one who ever possessed innate immortality. "Who only has
immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no
man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting" (1Tim.
6:16). This statement can only apply to Yahweh, the Father. How can a Son be
co-eternal with His Father if only His Father contains immortality? This is
further proof that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father
cannot be scripturally established.

The Power of Yahweh

The Nicene - Constantinopolitan Creed defined
the Holy Spirit as, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of
life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the
Son he is worshiped and glorified…" There are several contradictions between
this creed and the Bible regarding the Holy Spirit. However, before
examining these inconsistencies, let’s first seek to understand the terms.

The term "Holy Spirit" is from the Hebrew
ruach qodesh. The word spirit is derived from the Hebrew ruach,
occurring 389 times in the Old Testament. That includes 232 as "spirit," 92
times as "wind," and 27 times as "breath" in the King James Version.

Note the definition of the word ruach:
"The basic meaning of ruach is both ‘wind’ or ‘breath,’ but neither
is understood as essence; rather it is the power encountered in the breath
and the wind, whose whence and whither remains mysterious…2. ruach as
a designation for the wind is necessarily something found in motion with the
power to set other things in motion…The divine designation also apparently
has an intensifying function in a few passages: ruach elohim (Gen
1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)" (Theological Lexicon of the
Old Testament, "Ruach").

This lexicon states that ruach implies a
power that is within the breath and wind, which is connected to the Name
YHWH or Yahweh. The Holy Spirit is the power emanating from our Father
Yahweh. It is Yahweh’s power that puts all things into motion. It is His
power that brings life into creation. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of Elohim
"moved" upon the face of the waters. The word is rachaph in the
Hebrew and means, "to brood (flutter, move, shake)." Yahweh’s power (not an
individual) energized the planet, after which the earthly creation began in
earnest.

The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma,
which shares a mirror definition with the word ruach. "Pneuma; to
breathe, blow, primarily denotes the wind. Breath; the spirit which, like
the wind, is invisible, immaterial, and powerful" (The Complete Word
Study New Testament, "Pneuma").

It can be further demonstrated that the Holy
Spirit is not a separate being, but an inanimate power that proceeds from
the Father. In Isaiah 32:15, 44:3, and Acts 2:17 the Holy Spirit is
described as being poured. How can a being be poured into another? Titus
3:5-6 and Acts 2:33 testify that the Spirit is shed. How can a being shed
itself onto another? The Spirit is also described as something that can be
stirred up, 2Timothy 1:6; quenched, 1Thes. 5:19, and renewed, 2Cor. 4:16.
These attributes are far more fitting for a power than a person.

Father and Son, but No Spirit

In addition to this, there is another key fact
consistent in the New Testament. Paul never addressed the Holy Spirit in the
salutation of his letters, as he did the Father and Son. Notice:

• "… Grace to you and peace from Yahweh our
Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Rom. 1:7).

• "Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh
our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (1Cor. 1:3).

• "Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh our
Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (2Cor. 1:2).

• "Grace be to you and peace from Yahweh the
Father, and from our Master Yahshua Messiah" (Gal. 1:3).

• "Grace be to you, and peace, from Yahweh our
Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Eph. 1:2).

• "Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh
our Father, and from the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Phil. 1:2).

• "…Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh
our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah" (Col. 1:2).

• "…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the
Father and Messiah Yahshua our Master" (2Tim. 1:2).

• "…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the
Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah our Saviour" (Tit. 1:4).

In these twelve passages not once does Paul
mention the Holy Spirit; however, he consistently mentions both the Father
and Son. Is it possible that Paul, one of the greatest apostles in the New
Testament, simply forgot about one-third of a heavenly triunity? Of course
not, Paul recognized that it was not proper to include the Spirit, since it
represents Yahweh’s power and not a sentient being.

Paul is not alone in his omission of the Holy
Spirit. There are two key passages that mention the Father and Son with no
reference to the Holy Spirit. The first is Acts 7:55-56, "But he, being full
of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of
Elohim, and Yahshua standing on the right hand of Yahweh, And said, Behold,
I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
Yahweh."

As Stephen was being stoned for his open rebuke
of the Jewish leaders, he saw a vision of the Father and Son. While
Scripture states that he was "full of the Holy Spirit," the fact is the
Spirit was missing from his supernatural vision. He saw only the Father and
Son. If the Trinity is biblical, why does Stephen see only two heavenly
Hosts in this profound vision? There is no better opportunity to reveal it
than in a sacred visualization of the heavenly majesty, especially at such
key times like these.

In our second example, we find again the Father
and Son present, but the Spirit absent. "After this I beheld, and, lo, a
great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds,
and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb,
clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud
voice, saying, Salvation to our Elohim which sitteth upon the throne, and
unto the Lamb" (Rev. 7:9-10).

If the Trinity were legitimate and understood
by the writers of the New Testament, why is the Holy Spirit missing in this
passage and in so many others where it should be found? It’s quite simple
–no heavenly triumvirate exists in either old or new testament.

Alvan Lamson, author of The Church of the
First Three Centuries, offers a summation as to the legitimacy of
the Holy Spirit in composing part of a Trinity. "…we must look, not to
Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of [Yahshua] and his apostles, but
to Philo and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we
maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively
late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from
that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was
ingrafted on Christianity, through the Platonizing Fathers…"

Why the Pronoun ‘He’?

In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is often
referenced with the personal pronoun "he," "him," or "himself." Many will
point to this as proof for the Trinity. For example, in John 14:16-17
Yahshua stated, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth;
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth
him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

The "whom" here refers to the comforter, which
comes from the Greek parakletos, a masculine word in Greek. Even
though the Holy Spirit is described in the both the neuter and masculine
throughout the New Testament, it’s likely that the translators used the
Greek parakletos as an indicator for the gender of the Holy Spirit.
As such, the Spirit has been incorrectly rendered by the masculine pronoun
in the New Testament.

Referring to inanimate objects in the masculine
and feminine is not unusual. We find it in many languages. For example, in
Italian the words for "love," "sea," and "sun," are masculine and the words
for "art," "faith," and "light" are feminine. In like manner, in Arabic,
which contains no neuter gender, the words for "book," "class," "street" are
masculine while the words "car," "university," and "city" are feminine.

Similarly, Hebrew, a semitic language that
shares many parallels with Arabic, including being without the neuter
gender, has many cases where inanimate objects are rendered in the masculine
or feminine. Masculine examples include the words for "word," "day," and
"room." Instances of the feminine include "land," "animal," and "spirit."
Even though the word for spirit (Heb. ruach) is feminine in the
Hebrew language, Judaism views ruach as an inanimate object, i.e.,
wind. Likewise, parakletos is masculine in Greek, notwithstanding,
its usage is neuter. Translators with preconceived ideas about the Spirit
would use "he" when they had no justifiation to do so.

While many follow the pattern found in the King
James Version in rendering the Holy Spirit in the masculine, a few
translations correctly render it in the neuter, including the Diaglott,
Rotherham, Goodspeed, and Literal Concordant. In addition to the above
references, there are three instances in the KJV where it correctly refers
to the Holy Spirit in the neuter. The first is found in Matthew 10:20, "For
it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in
you." Instead of "who," the translators correctly used the form "which" in
reference to the Spirit. The last two examples are both found in the eighth
chapter of Romans, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of Elohim…Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our
infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the
Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered" (vv. 16, 26).

The Meaning of Elohim

In addition to the gender gap, much confusion
over the Trinity has developed from the Hebrew word elohim. According
to the Englishman’s Concordance, this term occurs 2,597 in the
Hebrew text. While it is singular in usage, it can be used in the plural
form, as a collective noun. Strong’s defines this term as, "…plural of
OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural
thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied
by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative."
The Complete Word Study Old Testament further states, "Elohim; this
masc. noun is pl. in form but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense
it refers to rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:6); pagan gods
(Ex. 18:11; Ps. 88:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97:7)…In the sing.
sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in
a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Deut. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and
many other passages," Lexical Aids, 430. The following provide
additional evidence for the singular and plural usages of elohim,
beginning with the singular.

Singular:

• "And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh Elohim of your fathers,
the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath
sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations" (Ex 3:15).

• "When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’
father in law, heard of all that Elohim had done for Moses, and for Israel
his people, and that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt" (Ex. 18:1).

• "Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast
unto Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which Yahweh shall choose: because
Yahweh thy Elohim shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the
works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice" (Deut. 16:15).
The above examples illustrate elohim in the singular; the remainder
provides examples of this word in the plural.

Plural:

• "And they called the people unto the
sacrifices of their mighty ones [elohim]: and the people did eat, and bowed
down to their mighty ones" (Num. 25:2).

• "Lest thou make a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their mighty ones
[elohim], and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones [elohim], and one call
thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice" (Ex. 34:15).

• "And they forsook Yahweh Elohim of their
fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other
mighty ones [elohim], of the mighty ones [elohim] of the people that were
round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked Yahweh to
anger" (Judg. 2:12).

Many assume that because elohim is
usually used in the plural, that it must refer to a Trinity. This is an
erroneous assumption by many who attempt to force the concept of a triad
into the Hebrew elohim. Elohim does not specify a number, only a
plurality. It can just as easily mean two heavenly beings.

Problematic ‘Trinitarian’ Passages

Two New Testament passages are popularly used
to support the doctrine of the Trinity. One is Matthew 28:19: "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (KJV).

The Jerusalem Bible questions
whether the formula given for baptism here is inspired or liturgical (added
later by the church). The Hebrew version of Matthew omits the verse
entirely. And although the passage is found in the three earliest known
Greek New Testament manuscripts, without any original New Testament
manuscripts in existence we have no evidence to substantiate that the
present form of Matthew 28:19 is accurate.

One reason biblical scholars question the
authenticity of this passage is that it conflicts with the actual method
used for baptizing in the New Testament. In all other instances baptism is
done only into the singular name of Yahshua (see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48;
19:5; 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). The Companion Bible makes
special note of this: "To some, perplexity, and even distress, is caused by
the apparent neglect of the disciples to carry out the [Master’s] command in
Matthew 28:19, 20, with regard to the formula for baptism. …Turning to Acts
and onwards, they find no single instance of, or reference to, baptism in
which the Triune name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is employed. On
the contrary, from the very first, only ten days after the injunction had
been given, Peter is found (Acts 2:38) commanding all his hearers including
those of the dispersion to be baptized in the name of [Yahshua the Messiah]"
(p. 206, Appendix 185).

A second reason why biblical scholars are
skeptical of Matthew 28:19 is because of conflicting historical documents.
Eusebius of Caesarea is known as one of the greatest Greek teachers and
historians of the early church. He lived approximately between the years of
270 CE and 340 CE. In citing Matthew, Eusebius omitted the Trinitarian
formula found in Matthew 28:19. "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius
quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’
and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’
the latter form being the more frequent" (Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics).

The Jewish New Testament Commentary
says, "Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula,
Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his
writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse
without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by
Hans Kosmala (‘The Conclusion of Matthew,’ Annual of the Swedish Theological
Institute, 4 (1965), (pp. 132-147) and David Flusser (‘The Conclusion of
Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,’ ibid., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119)
take the opposite view" (note on Matt. 28:19, p. 86).

Obviously, Eusebius did not recognize the
current form of Matthew 28:19. Instead of quoting the phrase, "in the name
of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he most often used the
phrase, "in my name," which would agree with all other accounts of baptism
in the New Testament.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
p. 380, further reveals that Justin Martyr, another church father, was also
possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19. "Justin Martyr
quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but
falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the
practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly
suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19."

The second passage in question is 1John 5:7.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Spirit: and these three are one." Most biblical scholars will admit
that 1John 5:7 was a late addition to the New Testament. In other words,
this passage is not found in the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Note the following on 1John 5:7: "During the
controversy of the 4th cent. over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was
expanded - first in Spain ca. 380, and then taken in the Vulg. - by the
insertion: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.’ A few late Greek
manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it is passed into the KJV. But all
modern critical editions and translations of the NT, including RSV, omit the
interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts
or in the early church fathers" (The Interpreter’s One-Volume
Commentary on the Bible, note on 1John 5:4-12).

The Jerusalem Bible note on 1John
5:7-8 says, "Vulg. vv. 7-8 read as follows ‘There are three witnesses in
heaven: the Father the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one; there
are three witnesses on earth: the Spirit the water and the blood’. The
words in italics (not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early
translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg. itself) are probably a gloss
that has crept into the text," 1 John 5:7.

There should be no question regarding the
faulty rendering of 1John 5:7-8. Historically, along with modern
scholarship, it is freely admitted that this passage is a later addition to
the original New Testament manuscripts. This passage, along with Matthew
28:19, cannot be used to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

From both the inspired Word of Yahweh and
biblical scholarship, the error of the Trinity is exposed. It is freely
admitted through historical and present scholarship that the Trinity was not
established during the time of the Apostles, but took an additional three
hundred years to become firmly established in the church. This occurred at a
time when the church was assimilating many people of pagan beliefs, most of
whom held to a Trinity teaching in their heathen background.

Like so many beliefs practiced by mankind, the
Trinity was developed through syncretized theology from various religions,
and not from the inspired Word.

Modalism (Oneness)

In addition to the Trinity, there is another
doctrine that developed during the first few centuries of the early Church.
It was called "Modalism" or "Sabellianism" and emphasized that there was
only one mighty one. Those who held to this belief rejected the Trinity.
According to author Wayne Grudem, "Another term for modalism is ‘modalistic
monarchianism,’ because this teaching not only says that God revealed
himself in different ‘modes’ but it also says that there is only one supreme
ruler (‘monarch’) in the universe and that is God himself, who consists of
only one person," Systematic Theology, p. 242.

The online Catholic Encyclopedia
states, "The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the
oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus
the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God
the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that
Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called
Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The
first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time
before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the
arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book ‘Adversus
Praxean’ are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians" (newadvent.org,
"Monarchians").

A modern version of Modalism is "Oneness." This
doctrine is a cornerstone of the Pentecostal faith and other charismatic
groups. It’s also believed by many in today’s messianic movement. Like
Modalism, they accept only the singleness of G-d. They emphatically state
that the G-d of the Bible presented himself in different "modes" at
different times. In the Old Testament He was the Father; in the New
Testament (prior to the giving of the Spirit) He was the Son and lastly; on
the day of Pentecost appeared as the Holy Spirit. Along with the Trinity,
they also reject the Messiah’s preexistence, which will be discussed at
length later.

The Pentecostal Oneness movement arose in the
early 1900s from a desire to follow Acts 2:38, baptism into the singular
name of the Messiah. While most Oneness advocates accept Matthew 28:19, they
reinterpret the passage as referring to the singular name of the Son. The
movement soon broke away from its parent church, the Church of God, and
formed an independent Oneness denomination. The movement then merged with
the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Since they emphasized the
singleness of "Jesus," they were also called by the name "Jesus Only,"
implying their rejection of the Father and Holy Spirit.

The two largest Oneness Pentecostal
organizations today are the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the
United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). According to the UPCI
statement of beliefs, "There is one God, who has revealed Himself as our
Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God
manifested in flesh. He is both God and man. (See Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians
4:4-6; Colossians 2:9; 1Timothy 3:16.)"

Does Scripture show that the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are simply different modes existing at separate times in
history? As we have already seen in our discussion of the Trinity, the
Father and Son are distinct; they are neither co-equal nor co-eternal.

Passages Cited for Oneness

We will now look at some of the common passages
used by those who advocate the oneness doctrine. One of the most cited is
Deuteronomy 6:4, also known as the Shema. It states, "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh
our Elohim is one Yahweh."

While there is debate as to the meaning of this
passage, the word "one" can be interpreted two ways. The first is as a
single being. In this case it refers to the Father. The second way is as a
collective noun. The Hebrew for "one" is echad, meaning, "…united,
i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first," Strong’s. In Genesis 2:24 this word is
used to express the relationship of a husband and wife. "Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one flesh." Clearly, the word echad here doesn’t refer
to one being, but to one in unity. The same relationship exists between the
Father and Son. They are not one being, but one in mind and goal. This is
likely what the Shema conveys.

Another passage cited in support of Oneness is
Deuteronomy 32:39, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no mighty
one with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there
any that can deliver out of my hand." This passage is simply expressing the
omnipotence of our Father in heaven. There is nothing in this passage
indicating that the Father and Son are one.

A third and very common reference is Isaiah
9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty El, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace." This is a prophecy of the Messiah when He will reign as King in the
millennial Kingdom. Many who promote Oneness point to the title "everlasting
Father." As the Restoration Study Bible note reads, "This
literally means, ‘Father of eternity.’ However, The Chaldee renders this
passage, ‘The man abiding forever’; The Vulgate as, ‘The Father of the
future age.’ The Jews understand the term ‘father’ in a variety of ways,
including: as a literal father, a grandfather, a ruler, or an instructor.
Since the context seems to refer to the Messiah, perhaps, this would be
better rendered, ‘everlasting ruler’ or ‘instructor.’ Yahshua will both rule
and instruct mankind in the Millennium and for all ages to come (Isa.
11:1-5; Mic. 4:1-2)."

No Other El

The next three claims for the Oneness teaching
are related and found in Isaiah. We will therefore refer to them together:

• "O Yahweh of hosts, Elohim of Israel, that
dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the Elohim, even thou alone, of all
the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth" (Isa. 37:16).

• "Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my
servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand
that I am he: before me there was no El formed, neither shall there be after
me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour. I have
declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange
elohim among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, that I am El.
Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of
my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? Thus saith Yahweh, your
redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and
have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the
ships. I am Yahweh, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King" (Isa.
43:10-15).

• "I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there
is no Elohim beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That
they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is
none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else" (Isa. 45:5-6).

Those who maintain the oneness of Yahweh will
typically say of these passages:

• Yahshua the Messiah did not preexist.

• Yahweh alone formed man from the womb.

• Yahweh alone made the earth.

• Yahweh alone stretched forth the heavens.

In short, Yahweh created all things without the
presence of Yahshua the Messiah. From these verses one can see how they
might come to these conclusions; however, as with most points of study there
is another possible explanation. This passage is not expressing the literal
act of creation but the Father’s authority.

In Exodus 3:14 the Father revealed Himself as
the great "I AM," conveying His ultimate superiority to all creation,
including His Son, Yahshua the Messiah. In this light all that is done is
the result of Yahweh’s greatness, regardless of whether He is the active
force involved. It is for this reason that He alone receives the recognition
for the creation of the heavens and earth, as we find here in Isaiah.

This is no different from notable historical
figures like Alexander the Great or Nebuchadnezzar claiming complete credit
for their empires. In truth, probably neither Alexander the Great nor
Nebuchadnezzar ever laid a brick, but it was by their authority and power
that they built their kingdoms and as a result received full acknowledgment
for their grand achievements.

A scriptural example can be found with King
Solomon and the building of the temple. "So Solomon built the house, and
finished it. And he built the walls of the house within with boards of
cedar, both the floor of the house, and the walls of the cieling: and he
covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house
with planks of fir. And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house,
both the floor and the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it
within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place…And the oracle he
prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of
Yahweh…So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a
partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with
gold. And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all
the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with
gold" (1Kings 6:14-16, 19, 21-22).

This passage gives all credit to Solomon as the
builder in every phase of temple construction. Does it mean he was out there
with gloves and hammer chipping away at stones while sweating in the hot
sun? No, Solomon was just overseeing and directing the construction. Yet, he
received full credit for the work. Similarly, Yahweh also oversaw creation
of the universe and justifiably received all credit. In both cases each was
acknowledged for the accomplishments but the actual work was carried out by
others.

What ‘One’ Means

The New Testament passage most often used to
support the Oneness doctrine is John 10:30. Yahshua states there, "I and my
Father are one." Was He referring to one in being or one in unity? Dr. E.W.
Bullinger states, "Gr. hen. Neut., one in essence, not one person…" (Companion
Bible, John 10:30). Barnes Notes further clarifies,
"The word translated "one" is not in the masculine, but in the neuter
gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may
express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from
the connection."

Again, John 10:30 speaks of one in mind and
purpose. Yahshua provides many illustrations of this unity in the New
Testament. One of the clearest is John 17, where He is praying to His Father
prior to His impalement. "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I
am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in
the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are" (vv. 10-11).

The word "one" here is the same word in John
10:30. According to Yahshua, in the same way we believers are one, the
Father and Son are one. Are we all one person? Obviously not! As we find
from the Apostle Paul, we are one in conviction and heart: "Fulfil ye my
joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of
one mind," Philippians 2:2. Consider the following:

• "Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do
the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work" (John 4:34).

• "Then answered Yahshua and said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what
he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth
the Son likewise" (John 5:19).

• "Then said Yahshua unto them, When ye have
lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do
nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things"
(John 8:28).

• "For I have not spoken of myself; but the
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what
I should speak" (John 12:49).

Clearly Yahshua is not stating that He and His
Father are the same being, but simply that they are one in mind and heart.
As a son follows the instructions of his father, Yahshua followed the
instructions of His Father Yahweh. He repeatedly said that He did not come
to do His own will, but the will of the Father. They cannot possibly be the
same individual! See Luke 22:42; Matthew 26:39; John 5:30; 6:38.

Another passage that is commonly used to
support Oneness is John 14:6-7: "Yahshua saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had
known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know
him, and have seen him." Some will make the claim from this passage that
Yahshua and His Father are the same individual; however, this passage would
again be better understood as being one in goal and mind. As previously
noted, just as a son obeys and shares the same interests as his father, the
Son shares the same interest, desire, motivation, and character as His
Heavenly Father.

The Son’s Authority

Another approach used by Oneness advocates is
the testimony found in John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Master and my Elohim." As referenced in the foregoing discussion on
elohim, while this term most often refers to Yahweh, it can also denote
false deities (both male and female), angels, and mankind. In essence, it
refers to an exalted position. Thomas here was not confusing the Son with
the Father, but was simply conveying the Son’s high-ranking position,
keeping in mind that this was after Yahshua’s resurrection.

In another passage, Peter states, "Therefore
let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that Elohim hath made that same
Yahshua, whom ye have impaled, both Master and Messiah," Acts 2:36. The word
"Master" is translated "Lord" in the KJV. It comes from the Greek kurios
and means, "…supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by
implication, Mr. (as a respectful title)," Strong’s. Vine’s Expository
Dictionary of Biblical Words defines this term as, "…properly an
adjective, signifying ‘having power’ (kuros) or ‘authority,’ is used as a
noun, variously translated in the NT, ‘Lord,’ ‘master,’ ‘Master,’ ‘owner,’
‘Sir,’ a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save
Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an owner, as in Luke
19:33, cf. Matt 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of
anything, as the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom
service is due on any ground, Matt 6:24; 24:50; Eph 6:5; (c) of an Emperor
or King, Acts 25:26; Rev 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor 8:5, cf. Isa
26:13; (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Matt 21:30, a
husband, 1 Peter 3:6, a master, Matt 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt 27:63,
an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a
stranger, John 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry
this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people,
Matt 8:2; John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68;
(g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. [Yahweh] (`LORD’ in
Eng. versions), see Matt 4:7; James 5:11, e. g., of adon, Lord, Matt 22:44,
and of Adonay, Lord, 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Peter 1:25."

Similar to the word elohim, the Greek
kurios refers to positions of power or authority. This not only includes
the Father and Son, but also authority within family and society. As such,
there is nothing in this word’s definition that would imply that the Son and
Father are one in being. Akin to the previous example, this passage is
simply expressing the Son’s elevated position.

Paul’s fourth chapter of Ephesians is also used
by advocates of the Oneness teaching: "There is one body, and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Master, one faith,
one baptism, One El and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,
and in you all" (vv. 4-6).

Do we finally see evidence here for Oneness?
No. Paul is conveying six key truths, none of which shows that the Father
and Son are the same being. Note:

• There is only one body, which the Son
presides over (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24);

• There is only one spirit, referring to the
Holy Spirit, the power proceeding from our Father Yahweh (1Cor. 12:4);

• One Son, Yahshua is the Messiah and Master;

• One faith, the same faith given and delivered
to Abraham (Gal. 3:29);

• One baptism, i.e., into the singular Name of
Yahshua the Messiah (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal.
3:27); and

While these passages provide insight into the
nature and activities of the Father and Son, they are silent in support of
the Oneness teaching. Nowhere in his writings does Paul forthrightly state
that the Father and Son are one being. This concept isn’t only missing here,
but is also counter to his message, as he makes a distinction between our
Master Yahshua and His Father Yahweh, the Creator and El of this grand
universe.

Paul writing to young Timothy states, "For
there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man
Messiah Yahshua" (1Tim. 2:5). Oneness adherents will also use this to
support their view. However, Paul shows a distinction between the two
beings. If Yahshua the Messiah is the mediator between His Father and man,
how is it possible that He is also the Father? Such reasoning is not only
unscriptural, but also irrational.

Writing again to Timothy, Paul speaks of a
great mystery pertaining to our Father Yahweh. "And without controversy
great is the mystery of holiness: Elohim was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1Tim. 3:16). Many believe
that Paul is confirming here that the Father and Son are the same being.
This passage is used by advocates of both the Trinity and Oneness teachings.

"Manifest" is derived from the Greek
phaneroo and means, "…to render apparent (literally or figuratively),"
Strong’s. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states, "to make manifest or
visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by
words, or deeds, or in any other way." This word conveys making something
known or visible. The Father was made visible in the flesh through His Son,
Yahshua the Messiah. Paul confirms this in the first chapter of Colossians:
"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us
into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible El,
the firstborn of every creature" (vv. 13-16).

The phrase "invisible El" refers to the Father.
Yahshua, the son of Yahweh, was created in His Father’s image and therefore
represented His Father on earth. Does this mean that the Father and Son are
the same being? It must be remembered that mankind too was created in
Yahweh’s image, Genesis 1:26. If Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:16 proves
that the Father and Son are one being, then we also must be one being with
the Father, as Scriptures declare that we were created in His image as well!
(Gen. 1:27).

The Alpha and Omega

The phrase "Alpha and Omega" is also frequently
employed to confirm the oneness of the Father and Son. It appears four times
in the book of Revelation and depending on the context, refers to both the
Father and the Son. The words "Alpha" and "Omega" are the first and last
letters in the Greek alphabet, respectively.

Chapter one contains the first two occurrences,
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith Yahweh, which is,
and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty…I was in the Spirit on
Yahweh’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I
am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…" (vv. 8, 10-11). From the
context, this is describing our Father Yahweh.

The third example is found in chapter 21, "And
he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of
life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his
Elohim, and he shall be my son" (vv. 6-7). With the reference here to Elohim
and the promise of becoming his "sons," this third also refers to the
Father.

Chapter 22 contains the last and final
instance, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give
every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end, the first and the last" (vv. 12-13). Unlike the
previous, this last example likely refers to Yahshua the Messiah. Yahshua
will come at the end of the age and reward those who were faithful (Matt.
16:27; 24:30; 25:1-13; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:9-11; Rev. 1:7).
According to Paul in 1Corinthians 15:23-28, the Father cannot come until
Yahshua defeats all enemies, including death.

What is the purpose for the phrase, "Alpha and
Omega"? This term is likely the result of rabbinic influence. According to
Barnes’ Notes, "Among the Jewish rabbis it was common to use
the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of
anything, from beginning to end. Thus, it is said, ‘Adam transgressed the
whole law, from "Aleph ( ) to Taw ( )."’ ‘Abraham kept the whole law, from
"Aleph ( ) to Taw ( )."’"

Speaking about Yahshua, Paul states, "For by
him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And
he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head
of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

According to Paul, through Yahshua all things
were created and consist. It’s important to recognize that Yahshua was the
active, creative agent behind all "thrones," "dominions," "principalities,"
and "powers." As such, He is the beginning and end of all things within this
universe, the visible and invisible. Does this imply though that the Son is
the same being as the Father? Of course not! As Yahshua did the will of His
Father in the New Testament, the same was true in His preexistence. Yahshua
is the manifestation of all that His Father is. All that He does reflects
upon His Father. It’s for this reason that the phrase "Alpha and Omega"
complements the Father, even in reference to the Son.

Contradictory Passages

Numerous passages show a clear distinction
between the Father and Son. Possibly the greatest hurdle of those who
promote the Oneness doctrine involves Yahshua’s death and resurrection.
After our Savior was horrifically beaten and tortured on the tree, Scripture
indicates that he died. Matthew 27:50 clearly states that He "yielded up the
spirit." As seen earlier, the word "spirit" is from the Greek pneuma
and refers to "a current of air, i.e. breath…" Strong’s. The Hebrew
equivalent to pneuma is ruach. Strong’s defines this word as,
"wind; by resemblance breath…."

When we die our Spirit returns to Yahweh (Eccl.
12:7), our con-sciousness ceases to exist (Ps.146:4; Eccl. 9:10) and our
bodies lie dormant in the grave awaiting the resurrection (Dan. 12:2, Matt.
27:52; 1Thess. 4:13-15). If our spirit or breath returns to Yahweh at death,
where then did Yahshua’s breath return, if He and the Father were one?
Equally perplexing, being that the Son was dead and unconscious in the
grave, is who resurrected Him three days later? Peter confirms that Yahweh
resurrected Yahshua, Acts 2:32. If Yahweh and Yahshua are one, this means
that Yahweh resurrected Himself from the grave even while dead.

Some attempt to explain these contradictions by
claiming that Yahshua never died, but descended to the depths of Hades where
he preached to the wicked. The fact is, if He never died we are without a
Savior. Hebrews unequivocally states that a complete death was required by
our Savior if we are to have life everlasting: "But Messiah being come an
high priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle,
not made with hands, that is to say not of this building; Neither by the
blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us… And for this cause he
is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the
redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they
which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where
a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no
strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb. 9:11-12, 15-16).

Yahshua confirms His own death in Revelation
1:18, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for
evermore, Amen; and have the keys of the grave and of death." The word
"dead" here comes from the Greek nekros and according to the Thayer’s
literally refers to "one that has breathed his last, lifeless." Based on
Hebrews and Yahshua’s own testimony, there should be no doubt that our
Savior literally died and was in the grave (heart of the earth) for three
full days and three full nights, as He prophesied in Matthew 12:40. On a
side note, this would make His traditional time in the grave impossible.
Based on the biblical record, He was placed in the tomb Wednesday evening
and resurrected late on the Sabbath (Saturday before sunset).

In addition, it must be asked, if Yahweh and
Yahshua are one, how did the world survive for the three days and three
nights while they lay unconscious in the grave? To state that the Father
resurrected Himself and that Yahweh was absent for three days and three
nights makes no sense and contradicts the very core of Scripture!

One might also ask who Yahshua cried out to
when he stated, "…Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My El, my El,
why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). Yahshua is calling out here to
His Father. If the Father and Son are one, does this mean that He was
calling out to Himself?

What about those instances where Yahshua prayed
to the Father, both in public and private. If He and the Father were one
being, what was the point? Was it for public show or self-affirmation?
Certainly neither. Yahshua was not praying to Himself but to His Father in
heaven.

Consider two more illustrations. Yahshua in
Matthew 22:44 said, "Yahweh said unto my Master, Sit thou on my right hand,
till I make thine enemies thy footstool." Is Yahshua sitting on His own
hand? As a final example, Yahshua confirms that only the Father knows the
timing of His Coming, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but my Father only," Matthew 24:36. If the Father and Son
are one being, how is it possible that the Father has information that the
son lacks? Was Yahshua simply telling a fib? Of course not; He was
confirming the fact that is apparent from cover to cover and that is that He
and His Father are not the same being. These passages along with the other
examples confirm that the belief in Oneness is not only unfounded
scripturally, but escapes reason and logic.

The Word Became Flesh

Even though the Son is distinct and not
co-eternal with the Father, Scripture confirms that He existed prior to His
birth at Bethlehem. There is no passage of greater importance regarding His
preexistence than the first chapter of John, "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. The same was in the
beginning with Elohim. All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)
full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-3, 14).

Who represents the "Word" here? In verse 14 the
"Word" is identified as the only begotten of the Father. This can refer only
to Yahshua the Messiah. Does the "Word" in verse 1 correspond to the "Word"
in verse 14? There are those who argue that the word in verse 1 refers to
the "plan of Yahweh," while the word in verse 14 refers to the manifestation
of that plan, i.e., Yahshua the Messiah. The problem with this view is
context. It’s clear here that there is only one "Word" and that is the
Messiah.

This passage could be rendered, "In the
beginning was the Messiah, and the Messiah was with Elohim, and the Messiah
was Elohim." Here is evidence that the Messiah was with Yahweh in the
beginning. There are some who struggle with John 1:1, which states, "…the
Word was Elohim." Some have interpreted this as John confirming the
equivalence of the Father and Son; validating that the Father and Son are
either co-equal or co-eternal or perhaps both.

Proper understanding begins with the Greek word
for "elohim," i.e., theos. This word refers to "a general name of
deities or divinities" (Thayer’s). From the Old and New testaments we find
that this term along with its Hebrew equivalent, elohim, contains a
wide application and applies to both the Father and Son. Based on the
meaning of theos, this passage could be rendered, "…the Messiah was a
‘Mighty One.’" John is not confusing the Father and Son. He is simply
confirming that in the beginning the Son was with His Father as a "Mighty
One."

Having established who this "Word" represents,
let’s now move on to the meaning of verse 3. It says there that all things
were made by Him. The Word, i.e., Yahshua, was the one who created all
things. This includes the atom, one of the smallest units of matter known to
man, as well as the vast galaxies in this universe.

To summarize, we find three facts in this
passage: (1) The "Word" represents Yahshua the Messiah, (2) Yahshua was with
His Father in the beginning and (3) all things were made through the
Messiah. To remove the Messiah’s preexistence is to remove His presence with
His Father and His pivotal role at creation.

Existed Before

In Yahshua’s eye-opening prayer in John 17:5 we
find Yahshua Himself declaring His own preexistence as He prepared for His
imminent death: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with
the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

The key word here is "was." It is derived from
the Greek einai meaning, "to exist" (Strong’s). Thayer’s offers a
similar definition, "to be, to exist, to happen, to be present." Based on
the Greek, Yahshua is asking His Father to provide Him the same glory that
He had before the world existed. The Messiah here offers irrefutable
confirmation of his preexistence. He declares that He had glory with His
Father, indicating His exalted state, before the world existed. This is the
same message found in the first chapter of John.

Similar to the previous example, in John
8:56-58 the Messiah confirms that He existed before Abraham. "Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the
Jews unto him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?
Yahshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
I am."

Before we consider verse 58, the critical verse
here, we must understand the context of this passage. Though this passage
speaks in the present tense, the context clearly refers to the past. In
verse 58, Yahshua makes the remarkable statement, "….before Abraham existed,
I was." What was He actually saying here? The meaning is once again revealed
in the Greek. The word "was" comes from the Greek ginomai. Strong’s
defines it as, "to cause to be, i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into
being)." Thayer’s adds, "to become, that is, to come into existence, to
begin to be, or to receive being." The phrase "I am" comes from the same
Greek word for "was" in John 17:5, i.e., einai. Additionally,
The Complete Word Study New Testament, under its Lexical Aid,
provides this definition: "to be, to exist, have existence or being."

The Messiah confirms here that before Abraham
came into being that He Himself existed or was present.

John the Baptist also confirms the Messiah’s
preexistence, "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of
whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was
before me" (John 1:15). The word "before" here is the Greek protos.
Strong’s defines this word as, "foremost (in time, place, order or
importance)." This statement by John clearly refers to time and not to order
of importance. This is evident from John’s earlier statement, "He that
cometh after me."

Those who know the genealogy might be saying,
but wait. John the Baptist’s mother, Elisabeth, conceived six months before
Mary (Luke 1:26). How then was Yahshua before John? This is explained only
through His preexistence. He existed in heaven with His Father prior to
being born as a man.

I Came from Above

In addition to these examples, Yahshua also
noted in several passages that He came down from heaven. One is John 3:13,
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Yahshua states that He came down from heaven.
The phrase "came down" is the Greek katabaino, meaning "to descend"
(Strong’s). Thayer’s offers additional detail on the meaning: "the place
from which one has come down." Yahshua confirms that He came down or
descended from heaven. Based on the Greek, no other interpretation would
apply. For this statement to be true our Savior would have had to first
exist in heaven prior to His human birth.

An analogous passage can be found in John 6:38,
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him
that sent me." The phrase "came down" is derived from the same Greek word
found in John 3:13, katabaino. The Messiah confirms once more that He
came down or descended from heaven. For this to be possible, He would have
had to preexist. In verse 62 Yahshua went on to say, "What and if you shall
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Scripture states that
after Yahshua’s death and resurrection that He ascended into heaven (Acts
1:11).

In John 8:23 Yahshua provides proof for His
previous existence by drawing a contrast between Himself and mankind. "And
he said unto them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this
world; I am not of this world." The Messiah provides witness here to His
place of origin. He states that while man was from beneath and of this
world, that He Himself was neither. If Yahshua was not from beneath or of
this world, from where did He commence? The only clear conclusion is that He
had His beginning in heaven. The fact that Yahshua also stated that He was
from above further solidifies this fact.

So from multiple passages we find the same
message, the Messiah came down from or existed in heaven prior to his human
birth. He also confirms that no man has gone to heaven which is corroborated
in both Old and New testaments (Gen. 3:19, Job 14:2, Ps. 103: 14-16, 146:4,
Eccl. 9:10, 12:7, Dan. 12:2, Acts 2:29-34).

Image of the Invisible El

Paul in Colossians 1:14-17 not only confirms
Yahshua’s preexistence, but also explains His role in the Old Testament: "In
whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who
is the image of the invisible El, the firstborn of every creature: For by
him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And
he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

The subject here is clearly Yahshua. In verse
15 Paul states that Yahshua is the image of the invisible El, referring to
the Father. The Messiah in John 6:46 confirmed that no man had seen the
Father except for the Son. Scripture also corroborates that the Father
cannot be seen and is invisible (1Tim. 1:17, Heb. 11:27).

Paul states here that Yahshua is the image of
His Father. Is he referring to Yahshua’s past existence with His Father
prior to the world or His present existence as a man? From the next few
verses we find that he’s referring to His past existence, which confirms
that He was the image or representation of His Father in the Old Testament.

In verse 15 Paul states that Yahshua is the
firstborn of every creature. The word "firstborn" is derived from the Greek
word prototokos. Both Strong’s and Thayer’s define this word as
"firstborn." They offer no other definition. The KJV also translates this
word as "first begotten." The meaning of prototokos is very specific.
It forthrightly describes Yahshua as the firstborn of every creature.

To ensure that we have a full understanding of
this passage, we must not neglect the word "creature." This word is derived
from the Greek ktisis. Strong’s defines it as, "original formation."
Thayer’s offers a similar definition, "creation, that is, a thing created;
used of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation." Based on the
Greek, Paul is validating that Yahshua was the firstborn of every original
formation of creation.

He goes on to further explain that not only was
Yahshua the firstborn of every creature, but also that through Him all
things in the heavens and on earth were created. The word "created" in verse
16 is from the Greek ktizo. Strong’s defines this word as, "to
fabricate" or to "create." As we saw from John 1:3, it was by the Messiah
that all things in heaven and on earth were created.

Paul’s last point here is important. Paul
states that by Him, Yahshua, all things consist, speaking about the creation
of the heavens and earth. If Yahshua was not present at creation, how then
would all things consist by Him? This would make no sense unless Yahshua was
both present and active at creation.

Present in the Beginning

As noted, Yahshua again validates His
preexistence in Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the assembly of the
Laodiceans write, These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning of the creation of El." This passage states that
Yahshua was the "beginning" of Yahweh’s creation. This word is derived from
the Greek arche. Strong’s defines this word as, "a commencement, or
(concretely) chief" as it pertains to time. Thayer’s offers a similar
definition: "(1) beginning, origin; (2) the person or thing that commences,
the first person or thing in a series, the leader; (3) that by which
anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause; or (4) the extremity of
a thing; used of the corners of a sail."

As seen from these sources, the Greek arche
has two definitions: (1) origin, beginning or commencement and (2) chief in
importance. While both definitions would apply to Yahshua, the first is much
more likely based on Colossians 1:15, where Paul states that the Messiah is
"the firstborn of every creature." Yahshua verifies here by His own
testimony that He was the beginning, origin, or commencement of Yahweh’s
creation. Understating this point is paramount. To ignore this truth is to
disregard the remarkable contribution Yahshua had as the origin or active
cause of Yahweh’s creation.

More extraordinary evidence of Yahshua’s
preexistence is found in Luke 10:17-18: "The seventy-two returned with joy
and said, ‘Master, even the demons submit to us in your name.’ He replied,
‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven’" (NIV).

Satan was once in heaven, but because of his
rebellion was cast out. The Old Testament also speaks of Satan’s fall from
grace in the past tense (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 14:12; Ezek. 28:12-15). Yahshua
said here that He witnessed this event. If Yahshua did not preexist, how is
it possible that He witnessed Satan’s fall from heaven? Without being
present, this would have been impossible. The only reasonable conclusion is
that Yahshua was actually there when Yahweh ousted Satan from heaven, thus
confirming Yahshua’s existence prior to Bethlehem.

Yahshua the Rock

In 1Corinthians 10 we find Paul confirming
Yahshua’s presence in the Old Testament. He states, "Moreover, brethren, I
would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under
the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses
in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And
did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Messiah" (vv. 1-4).

Yahshua as the "spiritual Rock" had a unique
relationship with Israel. He followed, meaning accompanied, Israel through
the wilderness. The Old Testament calls Him "the Angel of Yahweh." A clear
connection exists between the "spiritual Rock" and the Angel of Yahweh in
the Old Testament.

We find a second parallel between Yahshua and
the Angel of Yahweh. As Israel symbolically drank of this "spiritual Rock,"
we find in the New Testament that Yahshua declared that He was the living
waters: "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Yahshua stood and
cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that
believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water" (John 7:37-38).

In both Old and New testaments Yahshua
symbolized spiritual waters. This further reinforces the connection between
the Angel of Yahweh and the Messiah’s presence and activity in the Old
Testament.

Solomon Confirms the Savior’s Preexistence

As seen earlier, Solomon in Proverbs 8:22-31
chronicles Yahshua’s preexistence and active role in creation. "Yahweh
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set
up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there
were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding
with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I
brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor
the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I
was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he
established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the
deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass
his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was
by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing
always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my
delights were with the sons of men."

Some will say this passage refers not to
Yahshua, but to Yahweh’s wisdom. They will refer to verse 12 to validate
this assertion, where Solomon was inspired to write, "I wisdom dwell with
prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions." The challenge with
this belief is that the person in verse 22 was "possessed," literally
meaning, "to erect, i.e., create," Strong’s.

To erect or create something conveys that the
thing at one point did not exist. Therefore, to state that this refers to
Yahweh’s wisdom would be to claim that Yahweh at one point was without
wisdom. A much more likely interpretation is that the preexistent Messiah is
meant. This would not only harmonize with Revelation 3:14, but also
corroborate with all other New Testament passages referring to the Messiah’s
presence before Bethlehem.

Before moving on, Proverbs 8:30 offers a key
truth. It again states, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and
I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." The phrase "one
brought up" comes from the Hebrew amown. Brown Driver and
Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines this Hebrew word as, "an artificer, an
architect, a master workman, a skilled workman." Within the context, this
phrase would be better rendered "master workman," as found in most modern
translations.

Yahweh possessed (i.e., created) Yahshua before
His works of old. This includes before the existence of the earth (v.26) and
heavens (v.27). In verse 30, as previously noted, Yahshua was with Yahweh,
His Father, as a master workman. This phrase connotes the integral
contributions of the preexistent Messiah. As Solomon produced the blueprints
and plans of the temple and hired the best workman to complete the
construction, we find the same relationship here between Yahweh, the great
architect, and Yahshua, His master workman.

Solomon provides another contribution to the
Messiah’s preexistence in Proverbs 30:4. He writes, "Who has ascended up
into heaven, or descended? who has gathered the wind in his fists? who has
bound the waters in a garment? who has established all the ends of the
earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if you can tell?"
(Prov. 30:4).

This passage is referring to the creation of
the heavens and earth. This is a key point. In closing, Solomon asks, "What
is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name?" The question leads to one
conclusion: both the Father and Son existed and were present at creation.

Elohim Created

This relationship may also be found in Genesis
1:1, where we read, "In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the
earth." As previously mentioned, the word Elohim is singular, but is often
used in the plural, expressing more than one mighty one.

Based on the context of Genesis chapter one,
this word undoubtedly refers to more than one mighty one. This can be seen
from verse 26, where Scripture states, "Let us make man in our image."
Similar language is found in Genesis 3:22; 11:7. The question is, who is the
"us" mentioned here? Based on Proverbs 8:22-31, John 1:1-3, and Colossians
1:15-16, the "us" likely refers to the Father and Son, showing evidence once
more of both the Father and Son at creation.

As a side note, Genesis 1:1 literally reads,
"In the beginning Elohim, Aleph Tau, created . . . ." The Aleph and Tau
represents the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet and is a sign
of the direct object in Hebrew grammar. This may also depict the presence of
both the Father and Son at creation. As previously noted, a parallel exists
with several passages in Revelation, where both the Father and Son are
referred to as the Alpha and Omega.

Angel of Yahweh

Another intriguing parallel concerning the
pre-existent Messiah is found in the Angel of Yahweh. Exodus 23:20-21
reveals several similarities between these two figures: "Behold, I send an
Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place
which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not;
for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him."

Three significant comparisons are found here
between the Angel of Yahweh and the New Testament Messiah. They both
required obedience (Ex. 23:21 and Matt. 28:20), had authority over sin (Ex.
23:21 and Matt. 9:6), and contained Yahweh’s Name (Ex. 23:21 and Matt.
1:21). As noted, this angel is likely the "spiritual Rock" that Paul
referred to in 1Corinthians 10:4.

No other being corresponds based on the context
of these two passages. This angel can be found in other important roles,
three of which we will cover now. The first is referred to by Deacon Stephen
in the New Testament. In Acts 7:38 Stephen confirms that Moses received the
law from an angel: "This is he [Moses], that was in the assembly in the
wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our
fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us."

The word angel here is from the Greek
aggelos meaning, "a messenger; especially an ‘angel’" (Strong’s).
Thayer’s offers a similar definition: "a messenger, an envoy, one who was
sent, an angel, a messenger…." In contrast, Yahweh, the Father, the exalted
El, is neither an angel nor a messenger. Both are far below His exalted
status.

How does this correspond to the Old Testament?
"And Yahweh said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of
Israel, You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven" (Ex. 20:22).
How do we reconcile this passage with what Stephen said in Acts? The one who
likely gave the commandments to Moses was the Angel of Yahweh, corresponding
to the preexistent Messiah (1 Cor. 10:4) and the active agent of creation
(John 1:1). In the two remaining examples, this point will become clearer.

In Genesis 22 we find Abraham on the brink of
sacrificing his son Isaac, in which he was stopped by a mysterious figure.
"And the angel of Yahweh called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith Yahweh, for because thou hast done
this thing, and hast not withheld your son, your only son" (Gen. 22:15-16).

A passage akin to Genesis 22 is Exodus 3:2, 4:
"And the angel of Yahweh appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the
midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and
the bush was not consumed… And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see,
Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses.
And he said, Here am I."

In both of these passages we find one being
called the "angel of Yahweh" and "Yahweh." The narrative clearly shows that
this is the same being. From the culmination of evidence, this likely refers
to the active Word or preexistent Messiah acting on behalf of His Father.

Before continuing, it’s important to clarify
several crucial points. The Word, Angel of Yahweh and the Yahweh who spoke
and interacted with mankind was not the Father, but the Son conveying the
intents and words of His Father. This is comparable to when Yahshua spoke
and acted on behalf of His Father in the New Testament (John 1:18; 4:34;
5:19; 6:38; 7:16; 8:15-19, 28-30; 14:6). As noted earlier, Scripture does
not support a duality between the Father and Son. The Father is greater than
the Son (John 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3) and "one" only in mind and purpose
(John 17:22), not in being.

Yahweh of the Old Testament

We now lack only one remaining piece of this
puzzle. In several Old Testament passages we find "Yahweh" appearing and
interacting with man. For the reasons stated above and one additional
reason, which will now be explained, this cannot be the Father. Scripture
expressly states that no man has seen or heard the Father:

• "No man hath seen Yahweh at any time; the
only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him" (John 1:18).

• "And the Father himself, which hath sent me,
hath borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor
seen his shape" (John 5:37).

• "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the
light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to
whom be honour and power everlasting" (1Tim. 6:16).

• "No man hath seen Yahweh at any time. If we
love one another, Elohim dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us"
(1John 4:12, 20).

Yahshua, Paul, and John all state that no human
has seen or heard the Father. Considering this, how can we explain those
instances of when Yahweh appeared before man? For example, how can we
explain when Yahweh appeared before Abraham in Genesis 18:1-3: "And Yahweh
appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the
heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Master, if now I have
found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant."

Genesis 19:1 identifies the two men with Yahweh
as angels. The question remains, who was the "Yahweh" who appeared before
Abraham? Since Scripture declares that no man has seen the Father, this
cannot be the Father. From the weight of evidence, this probably represents
the Son, the active Word (Heb. Debar, Gk. Logos). To extend
this mystery further, Genesis 19:24 reveals two beings with the name Yahweh:
"Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from
Yahweh out of heaven." We find here one Yahweh on earth, the same Yahweh who
appeared before Abraham, and a second Yahweh in heaven. The Yahweh on earth
likely represents the Son and the Yahweh in heaven represents the Father. We
find that the Son rained fire and brimstone from the Father, not from
Himself.

In the New Testament Yahshua testified that He
could do nothing without His Father (John 8:28). As found here, this New
Testament principle held true in the Old Testament. All things within this
universe come from the Father, including His active Word, the preexistent
Messiah. Yahshua’s presence before Bethlehem is well documented in both Old
and New Testaments. The most important of this evidence is from the Messiah
Himself. He declared in several passages that He was with the Father from
the beginning (John 1:1), that He descended from heaven (John 3:13), that He
existed before Abraham (John 8:56) and that He had glory with the Father
before the world was (John 17:5).

In summary, while the identity of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit has been a long standing debate throughout the history
of the Church, Scripture is clear on the following facts:

• The word "Trinity" and its concept is absent
from the Old and New testaments.

• The notion of the Trinity is not new, but
goes back to the start of civilization.

• The Trinity doctrine was not firmly
established until over 300 years after the Messiah.

• The codification of the Trinity was motivated
from political pressure.

• The Father is greater and superior to the
Son.

• The Holy Spirit represents the power of the
Father, not a third of a Trinity.

• The Father and Son are not one in being, but
one in mind and goal

• While the Messiah is not eternal, He
preexisted as the active Word, i.e., logos.

As mankind ponders the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it’s
important that we study and confirm the truth behind this crucial subject.
This begins by letting go of preconceived thoughts and biases and
acknowledging the pages of Scripture as the sole source of authority. Only
through a forthright look at the Word can we decipher and break through
2,000 years of man’s tradition.